<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jul 5, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">I've read this one before, and have to say, even though I've just admitted I'm a duffer at maths, and especially statistics, this is rubbish. Or rather, it's a trick question.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></blockquote><br></div><div>It's neither rubbish or a trick question and statistical reasoning of this sort would be perfectly at home in a scientific paper. The thing is, probability (if you don't mean probability in the quantum world) is not a reflection of the thing itself but is a measure of our ignorance of it. If I ask "what is the probability that I have 2 boys?" the answer to me would be either zero or 100% but you don't know as much about my life as I do so your probability would be different.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, in the quantum world it does seem that probability may be part of the thing itself and even after 80 years philosophers haven't worked out the confusing implications of that. </div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div><br></body></html>